What does it want to say?The divorce rate would like a word with you...
Well, for one -- without a recognition of marriage, there's no basis for spousal rights.A disaster??? That's a pretty strong word, care to elaborate?
What does it want to say?The divorce rate would like a word with you...
Well, for one -- without a recognition of marriage, there's no basis for spousal rights.A disaster??? That's a pretty strong word, care to elaborate?
The divorce rate would like a word with you...
Sure it is. We deny those same things to people who choose to be single.It is not legal when it is denying homosexual marriages things like the insurance benefits and other 'bonuses' of being married on the basis of how they like to get jiggy.
What does it want to say?
Well, for one -- without a recognition of marriage, there's no basis for spousal rights.
Sure it is. We deny those same things to people who choose to be single.
We also legislate all sorts of inequalities in the tax code.
All the more reason to promote it.Marriage isn't as sacred or important as it used to be, state sanctioned or otherwise. Not in this country at least.
Worse!Just like some homosexuals have no basis for them now?
It would change society, and therefore affect everyone. If marriage were inconsequential, suuporters would see no reason to lobby for it.
Taking government out of marriage is a recipe for disaster. But more to the main point - I don't believe I've stated any view for or against gay marriage in this thread. Rather, I've been expressing a view strongly in favor of the debate being decided by voters rather than politicians.
Semantics. Roe v. Wade didn't change the constitution, but it certainly changed the law, making abortion legal.
This is not relevant to the point I made.
As with marriage.:lol: Which you usually have to earn or qualify for...
LOL - now you're really stretching.
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.You didn't answer my question. How would a gay marriage affect someone who is not gay?
As with marriage.
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.
How could it NOT affect you?
Haha -I quoted him and paraphrased. You're denying.
All the more reason to promote it.
Which of the versions of Marriage do you want to propose? Many cultures have a polygamist marriage system. Should we take their definition? Many people from those cultures live in America.
Marriage is something that is vastly different from culture to culture, and is not something that should be defined by the state, for it would imply issues with those cultures that do not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
No we should not take their definition.Which of the versions of Marriage do you want to propose? Many cultures have a polygamist marriage system. Should we take their definition? Many people from those cultures live in America.
It's precisely something that should be defined by the state. Why not promote what brings about a healthy society? If America had promoted polygamy over monogamy, we never would have achieved the status we have today.Marriage is something that is vastly different from culture to culture, and is not something that should be defined by the state, for it would imply issues with those cultures that do not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Will the policies leave with them?
"the people" did not ask to vote. A few people did.
All sorts of ways ranging from how people view such relationships to preferential adoption to taxes to a whole myriad of things.
How could it NOT affect you?
Haha -
You misinterpreted the point of my earlier statement and are now trying to cover your butt! I see right through it whether you wish to admit it or not.
No we should not take their definition.
It's precisely something that should be defined by the state. Why not promote what brings about a healthy society? If America had promoted polygamy over monogamy, we never would have achieved the status we have today.
You mention that "many people from those cultures live in America" -- for the most part, they consist of poor, uneducated people who rely on handouts from mainstream culture to survive.
If by not promoting that sort of lifestyle we "imply issues" -- all the better.
If America had promoted polygamy over monogamy, we never would have achieved the status we have today.
Sure. If people are pissed about it, they can vote the city council and mayor out of office next time they're up for election. Then the new city council and mayor can repeal those laws. Thus is the nature of a republic. See how that works?
We the People need to define what marriage is...not a court....not some Executive Mayor or some House member...We the People must remain the ultimate deciders, we're the one's who need to specifically define and make laws pertaining and regarding marriage. End of story.